It's a terrible study, many obvious counterpoints. For one, the infection numbers across the whole state almost perfectly match that graph, so you can't attribute any differences to masks
-
-
Replying to @GidMK @auscandoc and
I would not say it is a terrible study. It is an observational study with known limitations. The authors appropriately stated this in the title (Association) and were very reasonable and cautious in their interpretation. They did not over-state the evidence.pic.twitter.com/tm3dqQsNR8
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @TheSGEM @auscandoc and
Nah it's very silly. The statistical analyses are intrinsically flawed, the confounding pretty atrocious, and there are basic checks that would disprove the hypothesis that were not performed.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @GidMK @auscandoc and
I wouldnt uses "silly" (derogatory) - Accurately said association - Used "may" which could be substituted with may not & be just as correct - Recognized confounders - Used "suggest" I've seen such over-interpreted COVID literature and they were measuredhttps://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/silly …
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @TheSGEM @auscandoc and
Well, we're on twitter so I'm a bit informal If you want a more pedantic answer, the statistical analyses appear unjustified, are under-reported (R^2?) , and thus the results may be entirely spurious. The confounding, which is briefly discussed, is not just a limitation
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
But is an intrinsic flaw in the study design. Pre/post studies, by design, are challenging to infer causality from, and while there are observational designs that could have supported the statements made by the authors, this is not one of them. It is probably not appropriate
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
To even use the word "association" given that no effort was made to quantify the strength of that association in the paper. Moreover, given the obvious outliers, it appears likely that moving the analysis slightly would entirely change the results, which raises the possibility
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @GidMK @auscandoc and
I agree it was a weak study with multiple limitations. Must be interpreted with the existing literature. Do you think medical masks worn by HCW in health care setting prevent HCW getting respiratory illnesses?
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @TheSGEM @auscandoc and
I'm not against masks at all! What is frustrating me - and in part drove my glib response - is that really poor research studies are gaining enormous traction simply because they support mask wearing. This study has an altmetric of 2,400!
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @GidMK @auscandoc and
I think we are probably more on the same page. My concern has been the over-interpretation of the weak literature. I was pleased to see this study was not making claims of causation. Here are my thoughts on universal mandatory public masking from a debatehttp://thesgem.com/2020/05/sgem-xtra-mask4all-debate/ …
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes
I think the problem is, at this fraught point in time, that any studies like this are bound to be interpreted causally by the public regardless of the statements made in the conclusions. Given that, I think it's more appropriate to just not publish such flawed research
-
-
I can vouch that you both are very much on the same page. The page of, dare I say it, “robust” scientific research. Why I’m very glad I tagged you both _and_ you shared such useful critique..../2
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @auscandoc @GidMK and
2. But the discussion makes me ponder another vexed question: what if the research had been published but with the summary “masks _not_ associated with decreasing infections in HCW?” How would that have been misused (I’m already guessing Ken’s reply
). ../31 reply 0 retweets 3 likes - Show replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.